THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET
_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the President of the
United States is chosen, what his powers are, and what functions his
cabinet performs._
THE PRESIDENT
[Sidenote: The notable Presidents.]
=The Man and the Office.=—Forty years ago, an eminent English writer on
American government spoke of the presidency as the greatest secular
office in the world “to which anyone can rise by his own merits”.[122]
In view of this fact, he asked, how does it come that the position is
not more frequently filled by great and striking men? There have been
twenty-nine presidents since the constitution went into force in 1788.
Of these at least three, Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln have won an
assured place in world history. Five or six (including Adams, Jackson,
Grant, Cleveland, and Roosevelt) displayed during their respective terms
of office some qualities which marked them as men of uncommon force or
ability. Three others are still living and their achievements cannot yet
be fairly estimated. But taking all these together, and even adding a
few more for good measure, would it not still be a fair statement to say
that at least half the presidents have been men whose names would be
entirely forgotten nowadays were it not for the fact that they occupied
the presidential chair?
Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster, John Marshall, Henry Clay, and John
C. Calhoun are great and striking figures in American history although
they never reached the presidency; on the other hand the nation has, at
various times, bestowed its highest honor upon men of commonplace
qualities. This, of course, was not what the Fathers of the Republic
expected. It was their anticipation that the presidential office would
always be filled by men of “pre-eminent ability and virtue”.
Why has this expectation been in part disappointed? That is a question
which can only be answered by a study of the methods by which presidents
are chosen, the relations between the office and the party system, and
the duties that presidents are required to perform.
[Sidenote: Why the plan of indirect election was adopted.]
=How the President is Chosen.=—The Articles of Confederation did not
provide for a President; executive functions were performed by
committees of the Congress. But this plan was found to be altogether
unsatisfactory and the framers of the constitution decided in 1787 that
the new federal government ought to have a single executive head. How to
choose this head, however, was a problem which gave them great
difficulty and they debated it for a long time. They did not approve a
plan of election by direct popular vote, for they feared that this might
result in the choice of men who were personally popular but had no other
qualifications. Their study of ancient and mediaeval republics made them
averse to choosing the head of the nation by direct popular vote. They
were not prepared to trust the people; in those days the risk seemed too
great. On the other hand they did not desire to have the President
chosen by Congress because this would give Congress control of the
office, whereas their aim was to make the presidency a check upon
Congress. So they finally decided upon the expedient of direct election
by means of an electoral college.[123]
[Sidenote: The presidential electors.]
=The Original Plan of Election.=—Stated briefly the plan which they
agreed upon and inserted in the constitution was as follows: Each state
shall choose, in such manner as its legislature may determine, a number
of electors equal to the state’s combined quota of senators and
representatives in Congress. A state having, for example, two senators
and twelve representatives, is entitled to fourteen electors. On a
definite date, once in four years, the electors meet in their respective
states and give in writing their votes for President and Vice President.
These votes are sealed up, sent to Washington, counted, and announced.
This plan did not contemplate that nominations should be made in
advance, or that political parties should have anything to do with the
election, or that the various states, in choosing their electors, should
pledge them to vote for any particular candidate. It was expected that
the electors would meet, discuss the merits of all the available men for
the position, and give their votes accordingly.
[Sidenote: How the plan worked in the earlier elections.]
=The Actual Methods of Election Today.=—At the first two elections this
plan was followed. There were no nominations and no campaign preceding
the election. But at the election of 1796 it was well understood, even
before the electors met, that the contest would be between John Adams
and Thomas Jefferson. And as time went on the actual practice drifted
further away from the original plan of free choice by unpledged
electors. Political parties grew up; the electors were chosen with the
definite understanding that they would vote for a particular party
candidate, and their share in the election became purely nominal. In
1804 some changes were made in the method of election but they did not
affect the general plan or the current practice. Gradually the people
took into their own hands the function of choosing the President;
everywhere the state legislatures turned the work of choosing the
electors over to them, so that the presidential elections became, in
everything but name and form, direct elections by the people.[124]
[Sidenote: Five steps in the choosing of a President:]
In the choice of a President there are now five steps, but only two of
these are of any practical importance. First, each political party
nominates its candidate at a national convention, as already
described.[125] [Sidenote: 1. The nomination of candidates.] Second, in
each state the political parties nominate, either by primaries or state
conventions, their respective slates or groups of electors. [Sidenote:
2. The nomination of electors.] Third, the voters on election day decide
which group of electors shall be given the formal function of electing
the President. This the voters do on the Tuesday following the first
Monday in November every fourth year. [Sidenote: 3. The polling.] Each
voter marks his ballot for a group of electors but what he really does
is to indicate his preference for one of the candidates already
nominated at the party conventions. This means, of course, that one or
the other group of electors is chosen as a whole and the state’s vote
cast solidly. It rarely happens, for example, that a state casts ten
electoral votes for one candidate and five for another; if it has
fifteen votes they all go to one candidate. For this reason it sometimes
happens that a candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes
although not a majority of the popular votes, taking the country as a
whole. [Sidenote: 4. The action of the electors.] Fourth, the electors
meet in their respective states and cast their votes. Fifth, these votes
are opened in Washington and counted in the presence of Congress.
[Sidenote: 5. Counting the votes.] Among these five steps the first and
third are the important ones. The last step is nothing but a formality
unless it appears that no candidate has received a majority. In case
this happens the House of Representatives proceeds to choose a President
from among the three candidates who have stood highest. In the case of
the Vice President the choice rests with the Senate.[126]
[Sidenote: The “availability” of candidates.]
=Factors which Influence Presidential Nominations and Elections.=—As
matters have worked out it is not possible for anyone to be elected
President without first obtaining a nomination from one of the two
leading political parties. The party organizations and the party
conventions are influenced by groups of political leaders and these
leaders are often more interested in a man’s strength as a candidate
than in his personal qualifications for the work which a President has
to do. The consequence is that candidates have sometimes been nominated
by party conventions because they were compromises on whom opposing
factions of the party could agree, or because they could be counted upon
to carry some important state at the polls, or for some other reason
having nothing to do with the executive capacity of the individual
concerned.
[Sidenote: “Dark horses”]
A big national convention, comprising more than a thousand delegates,
cannot be expected to do its work with calm deliberation or to weigh
carefully the personal qualifications of all those who seek to be
nominated. If there is a prolonged contest between two or three strong
candidates, no one of whom can obtain the requisite number of votes in
the convention, the delegates in their impatience are likely to turn to
a “dark horse”, that is to someone less prominent on whom there is a
chance of agreement.[127] This has often happened.
The real work of nominating candidates is not done on the floor of the
convention. The plans are laid and put into operation by groups of
leaders in private conferences, the delegates following these leaders
when called upon. And the fact that a candidate possesses “great and
striking qualities” does not always commend him to these party leaders.
On most occasions they are likely to prefer a man who, if elected, will
work in harmony with the party organization rather than take the reins
of office wholly into his own hands.[128] By various combinations of
circumstances, therefore, men of mediocre quality have sometimes been
nominated.
[Sidenote: The election may turn upon various things.]
=Narrowness of the People’s Choice.=—A nomination by one of the two
leading parties is in some cases almost equivalent to election. There
are times, of course, when the election turns chiefly upon the merits of
the two leading candidates; but more often the result is determined by
other factors entirely. Each candidate embodies the strength of his
party as well as his own, and each political party is for various
reasons stronger in some years than in others. When a party has been in
power for a term of years the people usually grow disgruntled with its
policy and refuse to support the candidate of that party at the next
election no matter how capable he may be. There is every reason to
believe that the Democratic candidate was doomed to defeat in 1920 no
matter who he might have been. When one political party remains in power
for eight or twelve years it makes many enemies; people find fault on
one score or another and decide that they will vote for a change. Even a
strong candidate in such circumstances has very little hope of winning.
Public opinion is a very fickle thing. It exalts a public man as a hero
today and execrates him tomorrow. It is strong for one policy this year
and often veers around to something quite different a year or two later.
Men are borne into the presidential office on this surging tide,
sometimes without much reference to their individual qualifications.
They are nominated because they are acceptable to the party leaders, or
because they come from some strong and doubtful state, or because they
are agreed upon by compromise, or for any one of a dozen other reasons.
The capacity of the man is not always, and indeed not usually, the chief
factor in determining a presidential nomination.[129] Under the
circumstances the wonder is that the country has obtained, in the
presidential office, such a high general level of personal capacity and
character.
[Sidenote: Presidential powers:]
=Powers of the President.=—The actual powers of the President are
greater than those of any other ruler in the world, whether hereditary
or elective. He is the chief engineer of a great mechanism which
controls an army, raises several billion dollars a year in taxes,
enforces laws, regulates commerce, and employs the full time of more
than half a million public officials. Congress makes the laws, it is
true; but were it not for the President and those whom he appoints, the
laws would not be enforced. Congress decides what taxes shall be levied;
but the President and his subordinates collect them. Congress
appropriates money out of the treasury; but the executive branch of the
government, of which the President is the head, spends the money. The
President, in other words, is the nation’s chief executive—he is charged
with the duty of executing the laws. This is a large responsibility and
a good deal of the work is necessarily entrusted to subordinates whom
the President appoints.
[Sidenote: 1. Appointments.]
The appointing power is, then, an important phase of the President’s
authority. He names all the higher officials of the Government subject
to confirmation by the Senate as has already been explained. He has the
power to remove any national official. In the case of minor officials he
may, and usually does, depend upon the advice of senators or congressmen
both as regards appointments and removals; but in the case of all high
officers these things must have the President’s personal attention.
Naturally they take a great deal of his time.
[Sidenote: 2. The executive veto.]
In relation to Congress the President has the right to make
recommendations and to veto any measure which he does not approve. These
recommendations he may make either by written message or by appearing
before Congress in person. The veto power places a powerful weapon in
the President’s hands. Every bill or resolution which passes both Houses
of Congress must be laid before the President. If he approves, he signs
it. If not, he is entitled, at any time within ten days, to return the
bill or resolution without his signature, giving his reasons for the
refusal to sign. [Sidenote: Scope of the veto power.] When the President
vetoes a measure in this way Congress reconsiders it and a vote is then
taken to determine whether the action of the President shall be
sustained or overridden. If two-thirds of the members present in both
the Senate and the House vote to override the veto, the measure becomes
effective; if less than two-thirds so vote, the measure becomes null.
[Sidenote: The “pocket veto”.]
But suppose the President neither signs nor vetoes the measure within
ten days after it is sent to him, what then? The constitution provides
that in such case the measure shall become a law. If Congress adjourns
before the ten-day period has expired, however, the bill does not become
a law. It is not necessary for a President to veto any measure that may
come to him during the ten days immediately preceding the adjournment of
Congress. If he does not approve the measure, he merely withholds his
signature and it dies on his table. This is known as the “pocket veto”.
[Sidenote: Its use and abuse.]
The veto power has been used very little by some presidents and a great
deal by others. During the first forty years of the Republic only nine
bills were vetoed. But during the past forty years presidential vetoes
have been very common. When a measure has been vetoed there is great
difficulty, as a rule, in obtaining the necessary two-thirds vote to
override the veto; but vetoes, nevertheless, are occasionally overcome.
The use of the veto, although it is an exercise of executive power,
makes the President a vital factor in legislation. Under ordinary
circumstances he can defeat any measure that is not acceptable to
him.[130] There are exceptions to this rule, to be sure, but it is valid
in the main.
[Sidenote: 3. The conduct of foreign relations.]
Although the power of appointment and the veto power in normal times the
two chief sources of the President’s authority, he has others of
considerable importance. He conducts relations with foreign governments
and negotiates all treaties. Treaties do not become valid, however,
until ratified by the Senate. He decides whether ambassadors and other
diplomats sent to Washington from other countries shall be formally
recognized. He has power to pardon offenders sentenced in the federal
courts. He is commander-in-chief of the military and naval forces. All
these functions are vested in the President by the constitution and the
laws.
[Sidenote: 4. Other powers.]
Other powers have been acquired by usage, for example, the right to have
a large voice in controlling the policy of the political party to which
the President belongs. The President is a party man, a party leader. He
is elected on a party platform. The people expect the President to carry
out the pledges which this platform contains. To do this the President
finds it necessary at times to take the initiative in securing the
passage of laws by Congress and also to bring influence to bear upon the
members of both Houses. Strictly speaking, the President has no formal
share in the making of the laws; but as a matter of usage he has a
highly-important influence upon legislation.
=Succession to the Presidency.=—In case the President should die, or
resign, or be removed by impeachment, or be otherwise incapable of
performing his duties, the Vice President succeeds. In the absence of
the Vice President it has been provided by law that the members of the
cabinet, beginning with the Secretary of State, have the right of
succession according to the seniority of their offices.[131] No
President has ever resigned or been removed from office. On several
occasions, however, a Vice President has succeeded by reason of a
President’s death. Some presidents have been seriously ill during their
terms of office, and President Wilson was absent in France for several
months during 1918-1919; but in no case has the Vice President been
called upon to exercise the presidential functions.
[Sidenote: The Vice President.]
The office of Vice President, apart from the right of succession which
it carries, is not of much importance. In selecting their candidates for
the office the two leading political parties have usually given very
little thought to the problem of getting the most capable man. By the
time the great task of nominating a candidate for the presidency has
been finished, the delegates are in a mood to get home. They will not
spend hours and days taking ballot after ballot for the second place on
the ticket. Apart from presiding in the Senate the Vice President has no
regular official duties, but there is the ever-present chance that he
may have to step into the chief executive position. For that reason the
work of selecting candidates ought to be done more carefully than has
usually been the case.
THE CABINET
[Sidenote: The whole cabinet system rests on usage.]
=The Cabinet.=—The constitution makes no definite provision for a
cabinet. Its framers expected that the President would appoint
subordinates to assist him in the performance of his numerous functions
and they made allusion to these officials; but there was no anticipation
that the officials in charge of the various departments would be formed
into an organized branch of the government. So the cabinet rests upon
usage, not upon the constitution or the laws. The same is true of the
cabinet in England. It has no legal status, exercises no formal powers,
keeps no records, and has no fixed membership. The prime minister
selects, for membership in the cabinet, whomsoever he pleases, the only
restrictions being that they shall have seats in parliament and that the
cabinet as a whole shall have the support of a majority in the House of
Commons. The President of the United States has an even wider range of
choice in the selection of his cabinet. He is not bound to choose a
group of men who control a majority in either branch of Congress. His
cabinet may be as large or as small as he chooses to make it. By usage,
however, the American cabinet consists of the heads of the national
administrative departments, these departments having been at various
times established by law.[132] There are now ten such departments and
hence ten members of the cabinet. The ten departments are as follows:
State, Treasury, War, Navy, Post-Office, Interior, Justice, Agriculture,
Commerce, and Labor. The head of each is appointed by the President with
the confirmation of the Senate; but for more than eighty years this
confirmation has never been refused. The heads of departments are
responsible to the President alone and may be dismissed by him at any
time. They are not permitted to have seats in either the Senate or House
of Representatives.
[Sidenote: The cabinet’s functions:]
=The Functions of the Cabinet.=—In describing the functions of the
cabinet it is advisable to make, at the outset, a distinction between
those duties which are performed by the cabinet as a whole, and those
which pertain to the members of the cabinet individually, as heads of
their own departments.
[Sidenote: 1. As a body.]
The cabinet as a whole has no legal authority.[133] It is merely a group
of high officials which the President calls together once or twice a
week to discuss such matters as he chooses to lay before it, or matters
which he permits individual members to bring up. The President may
follow its advice or he may not. He does not need the approval of the
cabinet for any of his actions. At the same time it has become the
custom to consult the cabinet on practically all important questions of
general policy and to give considerable weight to the cabinet’s advice.
How much this weight will be depends, in large measure, upon the
temperament and attitude of the President himself.[134]
Meetings of the cabinet are not public; no records are kept or printed.
Nobody knows what goes on at the meetings of the cabinet except those
who are present. It is a point of honor among the members that no one
will disclose the proceedings to outsiders. Thus the cabinet always
presents an outward appearance of being unanimous. If any member cannot
work in harmony with the President or with his fellow-members, he is
expected to resign.
[Sidenote: 2. As individuals.]
More vital than the functions of the cabinet as a whole are those which
its members perform, as individuals, as heads of their departments.
Every member of the cabinet, as has been mentioned, is the head of a
department, and as such is given charge of some branch of the
government’s work, subject at all times, however, to the direction of
the President. The functions of each department are indicated, in a
general way, by their respective titles.[135] These duties are so
numerous and so varied that the various departments are divided into
bureaus, each bureau having charge of a certain division of the work. On
all routine matters the head of the department has practically
independent authority, but questions of general policy and those which
affect more than one department are either discussed at cabinet meetings
or taken to the President for his decision.[136]
=Should the Cabinet be Enlarged?=—Proposals are now under consideration
for enlarging the cabinet by the creation of a department of education
and a department of public health. It is contended, and perhaps rightly,
that the work of the national government in these two fields is
sufficiently important to warrant their being placed upon the same
footing as agriculture, labor, and commerce. As an alternative it has
been suggested that education and public health might be combined into a
single department of public welfare; but the objection to this is that
the two things have no close relation to each other. There is a feeling,
moreover, that the cabinet should not be made much larger than it now
is. If every request for the creation of a new department were granted,
the cabinet would soon become too cumbrous for the effective performance
of its advisory functions.
=American and English Cabinet Systems Compared.=—The cabinet system in
the United States is like that of England in some respects and different
in others. These similarities and contrasts may be made clear by putting
them in parallel columns.
SIMILARITIES
1. The American cabinet system 1. The English cabinet system also
rests on custom or usage. rests on usage, having no basis
in the laws of England.
2. Members of the American cabinet 2. Members of the English cabinet
are chosen by the chief are selected in the name of the
executive—the President. nominal chief executive—the king,
by the actual chief executive—the
prime minister.
3. Members of the American cabinet 3. Members of the English cabinet
are heads of departments. are also heads of departments;
but in England not all heads of
departments become members of the
cabinet.
4. The American cabinet advises the 4. The English cabinet, through the
President. prime minister, advises the king.
CONTRASTS
1. Members of the American cabinet 1. Members of the English cabinet
are not permitted to sit in must be members of parliament.
Congress.
2. Members of the American cabinet 2. Members of the English cabinet
are responsible to the President are responsible to the House of
only; they do not have to resign Commons and must resign whenever
if they fail to retain the they lose the support of a
confidence of Congress. majority of that chamber.
3. The American cabinet does not 3. The English cabinet is the
prepare business for Congress nor “great standing committee” of
assume any formal initiative in parliament, preparing all
law-making. important measures for its
consideration and assuming a
definite leadership in the making
of laws.
[Sidenote: Merits and defects of each plan.]
=Which is the Better Plan?=—The relative merits of the American and
English cabinet systems have been much discussed by writers in both
countries. The American plan enables the executive branch of the
government to retain its independence and thus prevents the lodging of
too much power in the hands of Congress. The English system makes the
House of Commons the supreme governing organ of the realm, with no legal
checks upon its omnipotence. It affords, moreover, a degree of
leadership in legislation which the American plan fails to provide. The
American system, on the other hand gives the individual member of
Congress greater scope for independent action in that he is not
confronted, at the beginning of each session, with a cut-and-dried
program arranged in advance by the cabinet.
No one can say that either system is of itself better than the other. As
well might it be argued that an elephant is stronger than a whale. The
strength of each depends upon its environment. The American cabinet
system fits into the American scheme of government; the English system
would not do this unless our whole plan of government were greatly
changed.
[Sidenote: The arguments in favor.]
=Should Members of the Cabinet Sit in Congress?=—The chief defect of the
American cabinet system, as thoughtful men now realize, is the fact that
while members of the cabinet and members of Congress are deeply
interested in the same work, they are kept at arm’s length apart.
Members of the cabinet have information of great value to Congress; and
Congress is usually desirous of knowing their opinions on public
questions. On the other hand the work of the various departments, over
which members of the cabinet have supervision, depends largely upon the
action of Congress. Congress votes them the money which they spend and
makes the laws under which they spend it. Why not bring the two bodies
into closer contact by permitting members of the cabinet to sit and
speak, but not to vote, in both houses of Congress? This has frequently
been proposed and it could be accomplished, if Congress so desired, by a
change in the rules.
[Sidenote: The arguments against.]
There are practical objections, however, to any such arrangement. It
would greatly increase the President’s influence over the work of
Congress by giving him ten agents—usually men of ability and
experience—in each chamber. They would have no votes, it is true; but
their argumentative powers would count. The President would doubtless
select as members of his cabinet persons who, by their abilities and
logic, could exert a strong influence upon the lawmaking bodies. It is
also pointed out as an objection that members of the cabinet already
have enough to do in attending to the affairs of their own departments.
Were they to spend their time in attending sessions of the Senate and
the House, they could not give adequate supervision to their other work,
and the administrative branch of the government would suffer in
consequence. When Congress now desires information or an expression of
opinion from any member of the cabinet, moreover, it is always possible
to obtain what it wants by inviting him to appear before a congressional
committee. This partly serves the purpose which would be attained by
giving members of the cabinet the right to sit and speak in Congress.
General References
JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 38-96;
WOODROW WILSON, _Congressional Government_, pp. 242-293; _Ibid._,
_Constitutional Government in the United States_, pp. 54-81;
W. H. TAFT, _Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers_, especially pp. 1-28;
C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 166-230; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 154-213;
EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
140-270;
JAMES T. YOUNG, _The New American Government and Its Work_, pp. 10-44;
W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 88-145;
P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal Government_, pp. 1-78;
W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of
Government_, pp. 178-195; 323-333.
Group Problems
=1. The actual steps in the election of a President.= The original plan
of election. What the framers of the constitution intended. The early
elections. Growth of a nominating system. The caucus. The convention.
Presidential primaries. Factors affecting the nomination. Doubtful
states. Functions of the electors today. Counting the electoral votes.
The part of Congress in presidential elections. Suggested changes in the
system. Should the electoral college be abolished? =References=: MAX
FARRAND, _The Framing of the Constitution_, pp. 160-175; _The
Federalist_, No. LXVII; J. H. DOUGHERTY, _The Electoral System of the
United States_, pp. 13-31; E. B. STANWOOD, _History of the Presidency_,
pp. 1-19; C. A. BEARD, _Readings in American Government and Politics_,
pp. 154-163; EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United
States_, pp. 140-167; ARNOLD B. HALL, _Popular Government_, pp. 98-119
(The Presidential Primary).
=2. The increased powers of the President in war time.= =References=:
_The Federalist_, No. 74; W. F. WILLOUGHBY, _Government Organization in
War Time and After_, pp. 1-21; W. B. WEEDEN, _War Government_, pp.
319-358; W. WHITING, _War Powers under the Constitution_, pp. 66-83;
EMLIN MCCLAIN, _Constitutional Law in the United States_, pp. 201-212;
P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal Government_, pp. 22-31;
ALLEN JOHNSON, _Readings in American Constitutional Law_, pp. 474-481;
EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
188-194.
=3. The American and English cabinet systems.= =References=: JAMES
BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 85-96; JOHN A. FAIRLIE,
_National Administration_, pp. 54-69; C. G. HAINES and B. M. HAINES,
_Principles and Problems of Government_, pp. 259-279; H. B. LEARNED,
_The President’s Cabinet_, pp. 9-43; JESSE MACY and J. W. GANNAWAY,
_Comparative Free Government_, pp. 81-95; 395-402; 421-446.
Short Studies
1. =The personality of Presidents.= T. F. MORAN, _American Presidents_,
pp. 9-115.
2. =Why great men are not elected.= JAMES BRYCE, _American
Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 69-76.
3. =The Hayes-Tilden contested election of 1876.= E. B. STANWOOD,
_History of the Presidency_, pp. 356-393.
4. =The President’s veto power.= ALLEN JOHNSON, _Readings in American
Constitutional History_, pp. 370-379; E. C. MASON, _The Veto Power_, pp.
24-140; H. J. FORD, _Rise and Growth of American Politics_, pp. 175-187.
5. =The President’s control of foreign relations.= E. S. CORWIN, _The
President’s Control of Foreign Relations_, pp. 84-125; ALLEN JOHNSON,
_Readings in American Constitutional History_, pp. 393-404.
6. =The President’s appointing power.= EVERETT KIMBALL, _National
Government of the United States_, pp. 181-188; L. M. SALMON, “The
Appointing Power of the President”, in _American Historical Association,
Annual Report (1899)_, Vol. I, pp. 67-86.
7. =The President as a party leader.= C. L. JONES, _Readings on Parties
and Elections_, pp. 205-211; JESSE MACY, _Party Organization and
Machinery_, pp. 25-42.
8. =Daily life in the White House.= BENJAMIN HARRISON, _This Country of
Ours_, pp. 159-180.
9. =How a cabinet is formed.= H. B. LEARNED, _History of the President’s
Cabinet_, pp. 110-134.
10. =The cabinet’s relation to the President.= EVERETT KIMBALL,
_National Government of the United States_, pp. 207-217.
11. =Is there need for a readjustment between the executive and
legislative branches of the government?= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH
SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 423-445.
12. =The actual work of the administrative departments.= F. J. HASKIN,
_American Government_, pp. 14-26 (The State Department); 27-39 (The
Treasury Department); 78-90 (The Department of the Interior).
Questions
1. Study carefully Article II, Sections 2-7, also Amendment XII, of the
constitution, and then answer these questions: (_a_) In what respects
was the method of election changed by this amendment? (_b_) In case no
candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes how is the
President chosen? The Vice President? Explain how it would be possible
to have a President from one party and a Vice President from another.
(_c_) If a retiring President or Vice President, immediately after
election in November, should desire to have his successor take office at
once, without waiting for the regular inauguration date in March, how
could this be done?
2. Explain how a candidate for the presidency may obtain a majority of
the people’s votes at the polls and yet not be elected. (This has
happened on more than one occasion.) Do you think it a fair arrangement?
3. What are the qualifications for the presidency: (_a_) legal
requirements; (_b_) practical requirements? Compare them with those for
the vice presidency under both heads.
4. Make a list of the qualities which you think a President ought to
possess, placing them in order of their importance. Name the President
whom you would regard as having each of these qualities in the highest
degree. What qualities do you associate with the names of Madison,
Jackson, Buchanan, Cleveland, Roosevelt?
5. Explain the veto and the pocket veto. Would you be in favor of
abolishing either? Ought the opinion of a single man to prevail against
the decisions of a majority of the senators and representatives?
6. Ought the President to give up all connection with his party on
assuming office and be a non-partisan, representing all the people?
7. Explain why the President has so much greater power in war time than
in time of peace.
8. Do you think that a President, in choosing members of his cabinet,
should be guided by any of the following motives and, if so, how much
weight should he give to them: (_a_) to have all parts of the country
represented in the cabinet; (_b_) to obtain men of long political
experience; (_c_) to reward those who have supported him; (_d_) to
strengthen himself for re-election; (_e_) to give representation to both
the radical and conservative elements?
9. Since the Attorney-General is always a lawyer, the Secretary of
Agriculture usually a farmer, and the Secretary of Labor usually a
member of a labor union, why should not the Secretary of War be a
soldier and the Secretary of the Navy a sailor?
10. Look up in the _Congressional Directory_ and tell what department
has jurisdiction over the following matters: consular service, pensions,
the mint, animal industry, child labor law enforcement, education,
forestry, the census, Indian affairs, lighthouses, rural free delivery,
relations with the Philippine Islands, inspection of drugs, payment of
interest on Liberty Bonds, naturalization, passports, dredging of
harbors.
Topics for Debate
1. The President should be ineligible for re-election.
2. The following new departments should be created and given
representation in the cabinet: (_a_) Public Health; (_b_) Education;
(_c_) Public Welfare.
3. Members of the cabinet should be permitted to speak, but not to vote,
in Congress.
-----
Footnote 65:
In some of the New England states there are places of twenty, thirty,
or even forty thousand people which are still governed as towns. (See
p. 175.)
Footnote 66:
See the chart facing this page.
Footnote 67:
According to the census of 1920 these twelve cities are as follows:
New York, 5,612,151; Chicago, 2,701,212; Philadelphia, 1,823,158;
Detroit, 993,737; Cleveland, 796,836; St. Louis, 772,897; Boston,
747,923; Baltimore, 733,826; Pittsburgh, 588,193; Los Angeles,
575,410; San Francisco, 508,410; Buffalo, 505,875.
Footnote 68:
If you make your home in a rural community, you will become acquainted
with most of your neighbors within a week; you will know all about
them, and (if they can find it out) they will know all about you. But
if you go as a stranger to live in a city apartment, with only thin
walls separating you from your neighbors, you may remain there for
months or even for years without becoming acquainted with any of them.
You may not even know your neighbor’s name, save for seeing it on his
door. Neighborliness is a trait of human nature which disappears in
the great cities. In the city a man’s friends are not his neighbors as
a rule, but persons of his own occupation or interests who may live a
considerable distance away. This is an important difference, for it
means that townships and villages have a unity which the wards and
districts of large cities do not possess.
Footnote 69:
The shortest city charter ever granted is the charter of London, given
by William the Conqueror in 1066. It contains exactly sixty-six words.
The longest is the present charter of New York City, which fills a
closely-printed book of 1478 pages.
Footnote 70:
It was understood that by applying a general charter law or municipal
code to all the cities of a state, or to all the cities of a certain
class, the legislature would be discouraged from enacting special laws
for particular cities. But that is not what resulted. Legislatures
adopted the plan of passing laws which were _general in form_ but
which by the nature of their provisions could apply to some one city
alone. For example: The Ohio legislature on one occasion provided that
“Any city of the first class, having a population of more than
150,000, wherein a public avenue of not less than 100 feet in width is
now projected, to be known as Gilbert Avenue, is hereby authorized to
issue bonds, etc.” This law, on its face, applied to all cities of the
first class; in reality it gave special privileges to one particular
city.
Footnote 71:
A few states, although unwilling to grant municipal home rule, have
gone part way in that direction by establishing what is known as the
Optional Charter system. The legislature, under this plan, draws up
several different types of charter. A city may by popular vote adopt
any one of these but is not permitted to make a special charter for
itself. The merit of this plan is that it allows a city a considerable
amount of choice without opening the door for all manner of rash local
experiments, many of which bring controversy and lawsuits because they
run foul of the state constitution or laws. The various optional
charters are so framed as to be in harmony with the general laws of
the state. This plan is used in New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
Ohio has both the home rule and the optional charter system; in
addition there is a general charter law for such cities as do not take
advantage of the other opportunities.
Footnote 72:
Surprisingly few mayors have ever gone any higher in the public life
of the state or nation. Most mayors, when they finish their terms,
drop but of sight. There are some exceptions, of course, the most
noteworthy being Grover Cleveland, who served as mayor of Buffalo
before he was elected governor of New York and, later, President of
the United States. Before becoming Secretary of War in President
Wilson’s cabinet, Newton D. Baker served two terms as mayor of
Cleveland, and Brand Whitlock was thrice mayor of Toledo before he
became minister to Belgium. A few other mayors have become governors,
ambassadors, or members of Congress; but when we remind ourselves that
nearly 400 men have held the office of mayor in the fifty largest
cities of the United States since 1900, we may well wonder what became
of all the rest. Apparently the office of mayor is not a good
political stepping-stone. Is the fault with the office or with the men
who usually occupy it?
Footnote 73:
The objection may also be overcome by using the system of proportional
representation described on pp. 134-136.
Footnote 74:
In September, 1900, a tidal wave swept in from the Gulf of Mexico and
destroyed about a third of the city. Galveston was already
overburdened with debt, and by this disaster, which wrecked much city
property, became practically bankrupt. The leading citizens came
together and decided that radical measures would have to be taken.
They, therefore, petitioned the Texas legislature to abolish the old
city government, placing entire charge of all municipal affairs in the
hands of five trustees or commissioners. The legislature complied and
the new plan went into effect in 1901.
Footnote 75:
The largest of these cities are Buffalo, New Orleans, and St. Paul.
Among the 400 commission-governed cities there are only fifteen with
populations exceeding 100,000. The plan has proved most popular in
places of small and medium size.
Footnote 76:
See the diagram which faces p. 198.
Footnote 77:
The plan originated in Sumter, N. C., but the first large city to
adopt it was Dayton, Ohio, about ten years ago. In the autumn of 1921
Cleveland adopted a city-manager charter which will go into effect in
January, 1924.
Footnote 78:
For an example of the way in which the city’s administrative work is
divided, see the diagram facing this page.
Footnote 79:
Some cities have established a central purchasing office which buys
all supplies of every sort, thus securing a concentration of the work.
A considerable saving is made in this way. But in most cities each
department still does its own buying.
Footnote 80:
More than a hundred and twenty-five years ago, when it was decided to
build the nation’s capital on the shores of the Potomac, President
Washington sent to France for Major L’Enfant, an engineer who had
served in the American army during the Revolution, and entrusted to
him the task of laying out the new city. L’Enfant took great pains to
provide for wide streets; he designated the location of the important
public buildings (such as the Capitol and the White House) and left
plenty of open spaces in his plan.
Footnote 81:
In Washington, thanks to L’Enfant’s sagacious planning, the streets
occupy about one-half the entire area.
Footnote 82:
This plan also renders it easy to find one’s way about, and this is
particularly true when the streets are known by numbers rather than by
names.
Footnote 83:
See the illustrative diagram facing this page.
Footnote 84:
PAVEMENTS ARRANGED IN THEIR APPROXIMATE ORDER OF DESIRABILITY FROM
DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Economy Economy Durability Cleanli- Noiseless- Safety
in in ness ness
construction Repair
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Macadam Granite Granite Asphalt Wood Granite
Asphalt Brick Wood Brick Macadam Macadam
Brick Wood Brick Wood Brick Brick
Wood Asphalt Asphalt Granite Asphalt Wood
Granite Macadam Macadam Macadam Granite Asphalt
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Footnote 85:
A common pretext is to allege that the lowest bidder is not a reliable
contractor, or that he underpays his workmen, or that on some previous
contract he failed to do a good job. Any such excuse is good enough
for city officials who desire to favor their own friends at the public
expense. City charters sometimes provide that contracts must be given
to the lowest bidder, but a hard-and-fast requirement of this kind may
sometimes lead to difficulties.
Footnote 86:
The unsightliness of the billboards is not their only objectionable
feature. Unless they are firmly anchored in the ground they are often
blown down by heavy winds; they afford places of concealment for
footpads; and they become the nucleus of a rubbish heap. Land is
rented for billboard space which otherwise would be improved and built
upon. Billboard space is given over very largely to the advertising of
non-essentials. If you will make a survey of say fifty billboards in
your own community, you will find that by far the greater portion of
the space is given to advertising luxuries. Local merchants use
billboard advertising very little. Outside concerns take most of their
surface.
Footnote 87:
Restrictions may legally be placed upon private property in the
interest of the public safety, health, or morals. But people cannot be
prohibited from using their own private property in ways which merely
offend the public taste.
Footnote 88:
The watchmen were very unreliable. In London it was said that most of
them spent the greater part of the night in the ale-houses while
thieves prowled around in the streets. In order to keep the watchmen
on their patrols it became the custom to have them call out the hours
as they went along. These watchmen’s cries, “Three o’clock, a misty
morning”, etc., were a quaint feature of London life a hundred years
ago.
Footnote 89:
Sir Robert Peel, who established the first regular police force in
England, made himself very unpopular for a time by this step. The
members of the new police force, by way of ridicule, were called
“peelers” and “bobbies”, and these nicknames persist in England to the
present day. They wore (and still wear) blue coats with copper
buttons, for which reason the London youngsters also referred to the
policeman as “the copper”. In America we have shortened it to “the
cop”.
Footnote 90:
In Berlin, for example, 98 per cent of the buildings are of brick,
stone, concrete, or other fire-resisting material. In the average
American city such buildings do not usually form more than 25 per cent
of the total.
Footnote 91:
Take the income-tax amendment, for example; or the prohibition
amendment. Both of them show a popular willingness to place great
powers in the hands of the federal government. The people would not
have agreed to direct election of senators a hundred years ago; but
they did it in 1913.
Footnote 92:
Hawaii and Alaska are both governed in the same way, and exactly like
one of the old territories. Porto Rico has a slightly different form
of government, in that certain high officials besides the governor are
appointed by the President. The government of the Philippines differs
still further in that the higher administrative officials are
appointed by the governor who, in turn, is named by the President.
Footnote 93:
During 1921 a study of Philippine conditions was made, at President
Harding’s request, by Major-General Leonard Wood and the Hon. W.
Cameron Forbes, former governor-general of the islands. These two
eminent investigators, after a careful survey, found much to say in
praise of the Filipinos; but their general conclusion was that the
islanders needed further training in self-government under American
supervision before they could wisely be given complete independence.
The entire text of the Wood-Forbes report is printed in The Times
“Current History” (January, 1922), pp. 678-694.
Footnote 94:
An area which is neither a state nor a territory, a zone nor an
insular possession remains to be mentioned. This is Washington, or the
District of Columbia as it is officially called, the home of the
nation’s government. It has neither mayor nor aldermen. The government
of the District is in the hands of three commissioners appointed by
the President, one of them being an officer of the army. These three
commissioners carry on all the work of municipal administration.
Footnote 95:
In some states, in Ohio, for example, the question of calling a
constitutional convention must be voted upon every twenty years.
Footnote 96:
In some states the legislature, in proposing an amendment, must pass
it in two successive sessions, or by a two-thirds vote, or must
conform to some other special requirement.
Footnote 97:
See especially Art. I, Sec. 9; and Amendments I-XV, XIX.
Footnote 98:
These four propositions may perhaps be made more understandable by the
accompanying table, which does not purport to be a complete
enumeration but only an illustration of the way in which the
propositions work out.
══════════════╤══════════════╤══════════════╤══════════════╤══════════════
EXCLUSIVELY │ CONCURRENT │ PROHIBITIONS │ PROHIBITIONS │ EXCLUSIVELY
NATIONAL │ POWERS │ UPON THE │ UPON THE │ STATE POWERS
POWERS │ │ NATION │ STATES │
──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────
To conduct │To tax. │To abridge │To keep troops│To make and
foreign af- │ │ freedom of │ or ships of │ enforce the
fairs. │To borrow │ worship or │ war in time │ ordinary
│ money. │ of the press │ of peace. │ civil and
To raise and │ │ or of assemb-│ │ criminal
support ar- │To promote │ ly or of pet-│To entry into │ laws.
mies. │ education. │ ition. │ any treaty. │
│ │ │ │To establish
To maintain a │To encourage │To deny any │To coin money │ and control
Navy. │ agriculture. │ of the other │ or issue │ local govern-
│ │ privileges │ bills of │ ment.
To regulate │To charter │ enumerated │ credit. │
foreign and │ banks and │ in the Bill │ │To conduct
interstate │ other corpor-│ of Rights │To pass any │ elections.
commerce. │ ations. │ (see Amend- │ law impair- │
│ │ ments I-X). │ ing the law │To regulate
To coin │To enforce the│ │ of contracts.│ commerce
money. │ Eighteenth │To permit │ │ and industry
│ Amendment. │ slavery in │To lay any │ within the
To establish │ │ any territory│ tax or duties│ state.
a postal │To establish │ within the │ on imports. │
service. │ and maintain │ national jur-│ │To protect the
│ courts. │ isdiction. │To abridge │ life, health,
To grant pat- │ │ │ the privi- │ and morals of
ents and │ │To abridge │ leges or im- │ the people
copyrights. │ │ the suffrage │ munities of │ (the “police
│ │ of citizens │ citizens of │ power”).
To admit new │ │ on account │ the United │
states. │ │ of sex. │ States, or │
│ │ │ deprive them │
│ │To give │ of life, lib-│
│ │ prefer- │ │
│ │ ence to one │ erty, or pro-│
│ │ state over │ perty without│
│ │ another in │ due process │
│ │ matters of │ of law or de-│
│ │ commerce. │ ny to persons│
│ │ │ within their │
│ │ │ jurisdiction │
│ │ │ the equal │
│ │ │ protection of│
│ │ │ the laws. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │To abridge the│
│ │ │ voting rights│
│ │ │ of citizens │
│ │ │ on │
│ │ │ account of │
│ │ │ race, color, │
│ │ │ previous │
│ │ │ condition of │
│ │ │ servitude, or│
│ │ │ sex. │
│ │--------------│--------------│
│ │To pass any bill of attainder│
│ │ or _ex post facto_ law. To │
│ │ grant letters of nobility. │
│ │ To levy duties on exports. │
══════════════╧══════════════╧═════════════════════════════╧══════════════
Footnote 99:
A wide range of authority is included, for example, within the term
“police power”, which is the power of the state to take measures for
protecting the safety, health, and morals of the people.
Footnote 100:
Any member of the legislature may introduce a bill, but not many of
them know how to draft one properly. That is not surprising, for state
legislatures are not made up of lawyers alone but of farmers,
shop-keepers, and other plain citizens who have had no previous
experience in lawmaking. In order to help the members of the
legislature some states have established _legislative reference
bureaus_ in charge of expert bill-drafters. These bureaus keep on file
all the latest information concerning what is being done in other
states, including copies of laws which have been passed there. At the
request of any member the bureau officials will prepare a bill
embodying the member’s ideas.
Footnote 101:
A good deal of the trouble is due to party leaders and to lobbyists
who plague the members into voting for measures or against them.
Lobbyists are paid agents of corporations, labor organizations,
women’s leagues, reform associations, granges, and so on, who hang
around the lobby and argue with the legislators, trying to influence
their action by persuasion or threats as may seem likely to be most
effective. At any state capitol one may count these lobbyists by the
dozen.
Footnote 102:
In New York State the Supreme Court, paradoxically, is not supreme.
Final authority among the state courts rests with a still higher
court, known as the Court of Appeals.
Footnote 103:
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is explained on pp. 311-313.
All other cases besides those named in the constitution come within
the authority of the state courts.
Footnote 104:
When a governor instructs these elective officials to do something,
they frequently refuse. In one case a state treasurer kept large sums
of money in banks which the governor and other high state officials
believed to be unsafe. They urged him to withdraw these funds, but the
treasurer declined to do so. A little later two of these banks were
closed by order of the bank commissioner and half a million dollars of
the state’s money was tied up.
Footnote 105:
See the diagram facing this page.
Footnote 106:
There were some notable absences. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were
not there; both were serving their country as diplomatic
representatives abroad, the one in France and the other in England.
Nor was John Hancock, whose flashing signature first meets the eye
among the signers of the Declaration. Neither was Patrick Henry
present, for he was strongly opposed to the convention’s being held at
all and declined to be a delegate from Virginia.
Footnote 107:
Three of these compromises, commonly known as “The Great Compromises”,
stand out prominently and are fully described in all books of American
history, so that they do not need to be given in detail here. There
were compromises on many minor points as well.
Footnote 108:
North Carolina did not ratify, however, until 1789, and Rhode Island
not until 1790.
Footnote 109:
A congressman who is elected in November does not take his seat until
a year from the following December. This is because, although elected
in November, his term does not begin until the ensuing fourth of
March. By that time the winter session is over. Thus it happens that
men who are defeated at the polls often continue to make the nation’s
laws.
Footnote 110:
No one is eligible for election to the Senate unless he is at least
thirty years of age. He must also have been a citizen of the United
States for at least nine years and at the time of his election an
inhabitant of the state from which he is chosen. The governor of the
state may be empowered by the legislature to fill any vacancy which
may occur through the death or resignation of a senator, this
temporary appointment to be valid until a senatorial election is held.
Footnote 111:
The Vice President of the United States presides over the Senate when
trying impeachments, as at other times; but when the President is
being impeached the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as
temporary presiding officer. Who would preside in case the Vice
President were impeached? The constitution does not say. Presumably
the president _pro tempore_ of the Senate would preside.
Footnote 112:
Nine civil officers of the United States have been impeached at one
time or another during the past hundred and twenty-five years. The
most notable case was that of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. He was
charged by the House of Representatives with having violated the laws
relating to appointments (particularly the Tenure of Office Act), but
was acquitted. The Senate voted thirty-five to nineteen for his
conviction, but this was one vote short of the necessary two-thirds
majority.
Footnote 113:
Despite the desirability of keeping the membership down, there is a
constant temptation to increase it in order that no state shall have
fewer representatives than it has become accustomed to having.
Footnote 114:
When Elbridge Gerry was governor of Massachusetts in 1812, the state
legislature rearranged the congressional districts in such a way that
one of them had a dragon-like appearance. The boundaries of this
district had been marked on a map in a local newspaper office. Gilbert
Stuart, the famous painter, happened to come in and with his pencil
added a head, wings, and claws to the figure. “That will do for a
Salamander,” he said. “Better say a Gerry-mander,” replied the editor,
and the outlandish name, thus accidentally coined, passed into the
English language.
Footnote 115:
The plan at present (1922) is as follows: the Republican members of
the House from each state select one of their members to represent
them in choosing the committees. This representative from each state
becomes a member of the Committee on Committees and at meetings of
this committee casts a vote equal to the number of Republican
Representatives from his state. This Committee on Committees selects
the Republican members of the various committees. A caucus of the
Democratic members of the House, sometimes through the medium of a
Committee on Committees, selects the Democratic members of the
Committees. Then the House as a whole accepts the joint list.
Footnote 116:
On many bills the committees do not even hold hearings; if they did,
they would never get through with their work. Measures by the hundred
are introduced each year by congressmen simply to please people in
their districts and without the slightest expectation that they will
ever be passed.
Footnote 117:
When bills are introduced in the Senate, they are considered there
first and then sent down to the House. Except in the case of bills
relating to revenue and expenditure any measure may be introduced in
either chamber.
Footnote 118:
Another way to delay business is to keep continually asking for
roll-calls to see if a quorum is present. Calling the names of 435
members takes a lot of time. Some years ago a bill was introduced to
provide for the installation of electric apparatus by means of which
every member could register “Yes”, “No”, or “Present” by merely
pressing a button at his seat. On the wall there were to be electric
bulbs set opposite each congressman’s name. Pressing the button would
indicate the congressman’s answer to a roll call by flashing a red or
white or blue light on the wall. Congress did not adopt the plan.
Footnote 119:
See pp. 463-465.
Footnote 120:
On the question whether members of the American cabinet should sit in
Congress, see p. 302.
Footnote 121:
During the past year or two a group of congressmen, both senators and
representatives, from the agricultural states has been voting solidly
and without regard to party affiliations on many important measures.
This group is known as the “agricultural bloc”. Its avowed aim is to
see that the interests of the farmers are properly safeguarded in all
legislation. For a brief discussion of this topic from a different
angle, see p. 350.
Footnote 122:
JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, Ch. VII.
Footnote 123:
When the constitution was finally drawn and made public many features
of it were strongly criticized, but nowhere was there any objection to
this method of electing the President. Everyone seemed to feel that
this method of choice by an electoral college was an admirable one.
Yet curiously enough it turned out to be one of the poorest things
that the convention did. It has completely failed to work out as the
convention intended. Direct popular election, which the constitution
endeavors to avoid, is exactly what we have. The convention, moreover,
placed no limit upon the number of terms which a President might have.
But Washington set the example by declining a third consecutive term
and no President since his time has ever served three terms. From time
to time it has been suggested that the President’s term should be
lengthened to six years and that he should then be made ineligible for
re-election, just as, in some of our larger cities, the mayor is
ineligible to succeed himself. This suggestion, however, has never
found much favor.
Footnote 124:
If the original plan were now followed, this is about what would
happen: After the presidential election in November the people and the
newspapers would be discussing the probable attitude of the electors,
wondering whom they would choose and making various suggestions to
them. Some electors would be announcing their preferences; others
would be keeping silent. With great interest we should await the
meetings of the electors in January; the newspaper reporters would
crowd outside the door to gain the first inkling of their decisions in
each state; the returns would come in one by one from the forty-eight
state capitals and would be figured up with breathless interest. But
what actually does happen is very different from this. On the evening
of the presidential election the fight is all over. Nobody knows, and
nobody cares who the electors are. We only know that a majority of
them will vote for the Republican or for the Democratic candidate when
the time comes. In January they meet, almost unnoticed, cast their
votes as a matter of form, and get a small paragraph somewhere on the
inside pages of the newspapers.
Footnote 125:
See p. 158.
Footnote 126:
The House votes by states; the Senate by individual members. See
Amendment XII. In 1800 there was a tie, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron
Burr, each having an equal number of votes. The House of
Representatives decided the tie by electing Jefferson. Then the
Twelfth Amendment was adopted. In 1824 no candidate received a
majority, and on this occasion the House chose John Quincy Adams as
President. The system worked thereafter without mishap for over fifty
years, but in 1876 there was a serious muddle because twenty-two
electoral voters were in dispute, namely, the votes of Oregon,
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. From each of these states two
sets of electors claimed to have been chosen. The controversy was
decided by a special commission of fifteen members, five from the
Senate, five from the House, and five from the Supreme Court. By a
vote of 8 to 7 this commission decided in favor of Rutherford B. Hayes
and he became President.
Footnote 127:
In the Republican national convention of 1920, for example, General
Leonard Wood and Governor Lowden polled the largest number of votes on
the first ballot. Senator Hiram Johnson of California was third and
Senator Harding of Ohio was fourth. But neither of the two leading
candidates could obtain a majority although ballot after ballot was
taken. Finally, when the delegates were becoming tired and impatient,
some of their leaders came together and agreed to unite on Senator
Harding. They advised their supporters to swing over to him and on a
subsequent ballot he was nominated.
Footnote 128:
The delegates sometimes resent this attitude on the part of the
leaders. They may make a strenuous fight in the convention or they may
bolt altogether. Thus, in 1912, the leaders of the Republican
convention decided to renominate President Taft and, after a hard
fight, managed to get a majority of the delegates recorded in his
favor. But a very strong minority desired to nominate ex-President
Roosevelt, who was believed to be far more acceptable to the rank and
file of the party throughout the country. When they failed in the
convention they left the hall, formed a new party, and nominated
Colonel Roosevelt as the Progressive candidate. But this merely split
the Republican ranks wide open and made certain the success of the
Democrats at the forthcoming election.
Footnote 129:
During the past fifty years there have been eleven presidents. Of
these, six came from Ohio and three from New York. One came from
Indiana (but was a native of Ohio), and one from New Jersey. Only four
states, therefore, have contributed occupants to the presidential
office during half a century.
Footnote 130:
England is a monarchy and the United States a republic, yet the
English monarch has no veto power like that of the President. By usage
the king must sign every bill that is laid before him. Someone has
said that the king of England would be under obligations to sign his
own death warrant if parliament should send it up to him. The
President of the United States is given his far-reaching power to
override the wishes of a majority in Congress because he is an
elective officer and in the exercise of his veto acts for the people,
not for himself.
Footnote 131:
When Mr. Harding was elected in November, 1920, President Wilson was
slowly recovering from a severe illness. Great problems were awaiting
attention and by many it was deemed unfortunate that the newly-elected
President could not take hold of them for four months. So Mr. Bryan
suggested that Mr. Harding should be appointed Secretary of State and
that thereafter the President and Vice President should resign. This,
under the rules of succession, would have enabled Mr. Harding to take
office at once. But the suggestion was not accepted.
Footnote 132:
On assuming office in 1921 President Harding invited the Vice
President to attend all meetings of the cabinet.
Footnote 133:
When President Wilson was ill in 1920 the Secretary of State, Mr.
Robert Lansing, called the cabinet together to discuss some urgent
matters of business. In due course the President heard of this action
and resented it. In a letter to the Secretary of State he called
attention to the fact that without the President there was nothing
that the cabinet could legally do.
Footnote 134:
President Lincoln, for example, did not consult the cabinet in the
framing of the Emancipation Proclamation; he merely read it to the
cabinet after it was finished. General Grant treated his cabinet as
though it was merely his general staff with the function of carrying
out orders rather than giving advice. President Roosevelt usually had
his own mind made up on matters of policy, and the members of his
cabinet, although they differed from him in temperament, did not often
differ from him in opinion. President Wilson, in choosing his cabinet,
made it a point to get men whose minds ran along with his own. On the
other hand, President Hayes, President Harrison, and President
McKinley were considerably guided by the advice of their cabinets and
consulted them freely.
Footnote 135:
The State Department deals chiefly with foreign and diplomatic affairs
as well as with relations between the nation and the states; it also
promulgates the laws passed by Congress. The Department of the
Treasury collects the revenues, pays the government’s bills, attends
to the borrowing of money when necessary, issues the currency, and has
general supervision over the national banks. The War Department has
charge of the armed forces, the land fortifications, the purchase of
munitions, and the whole upkeep of the army. The Department of the
Interior has functions of a very miscellaneous nature, so much so that
it has been jocularly called the “department of things in general”. It
has charge of national parks and forests, patents, pensions, the
geological survey, and various other things which have little relation
to one another. The Postmaster-General assumes the oversight of the
entire postal service. The Department of Justice has an
Attorney-General at its head. He is the government’s chief legal
advisor and represents it in all legal controversies. The Navy
Department has charge of all the nation’s armed forces afloat. The
Department of Agriculture has to do with the promotion of agricultural
interests throughout the country (see pp. 346-348). The Department of
Labor has charge of immigration, naturalization, and the execution of
the federal laws relating to labor. The Department of Commerce is
concerned with the development of foreign and domestic trade, the
inspection of steamboats, the publication of consular reports (see pp.
373-374), and so forth.
Footnote 136:
In addition to the ten regular departments there are other branches of
the national administration whose heads are not members of the
cabinet. These include such bodies as the Interstate Commerce
Commission (p. 364), the Federal Trade Commission (p. 391), the Civil
Service Commission (p. 103), the Tariff Commission (p. 370), besides
various bureaus of one kind or another. Members of these boards and
heads of the independent bureaus are all appointed by the President,
responsible to him, and removable by him.